3 ms·

Replace gay marriage with racial segregation. What should be the social repercussions, if any, when a person advocates racial segregation? At what point does

Replace gay marriage with racial segregation. What should be the social repercussions, if any, when a person advocates racial segregation? At what point does a good faith disagreement become taboo? Edited: A closer analogy would be interracial marriage. Laws prohibiting interracial marriage weren't struct down until 1967. Could a respectful person advocate banning interracial marriages ?

paulhauggis 12y ago
"Replace gay marriage with racial segregation. What should be the social repercussions, if any, when a person advocates racial segregation?" How about we replace gay marriage with Christian? I have found that in the same circles that want acceptance and open thinking start to sing a different tune when it comes to religion.
- woofyman 12y ago
  True Christians are wonderful people. Intolerant Christians, not so much.
  - thesagan 12y ago
    Like true Scottish people. I don't want to be a prick, but that's a can of worms, right there.
    - psquid 12y ago
      There's no one source which any Scotsman claims defines a Scotsman, though, whereas pretty much the core part of the definition of Christianity is following the teachings of Christ (it's in the name!), which the vast majority of bigots-who-call-themselves-Christians certainly don't.
      - deciplex 12y ago
        What are the teachings of Christ?
      - mercer 12y ago
        That's still a tough one though. Do we stop at just the words of Jesus, or do we include the teachings of the apostles? And if we include the apostles, what about the Catholic 'continuation' of that? Or what about reinterpretations by self-proclaimed prophets that are part of the many fascinating, sometimes scary, and sometimes sizable 'sects'?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> At what point does a good faith disagreement become taboo? It should be never. Let's take your example. For sake of argument I'm going to make an argument against interracial marriage. The US has a great diversity of cultural identities which are largely tied to race. For example, African Americans make up 13.2% of the US population and have a unique history and music, their own vernacular (AAVE), etc. We should seek to preserve these diverse cultural identities, but they are generally lost in families where the parents come from different cultural/racial groups. For example, if the current generation chooses mates without regard to race then in the next generation only 1.74% of offspring will have two African American parents. In the following generation the number drops to 0.03%. The entire third generation would fit into a typical school auditorium and the fourth generation would be extinct. The same would be true of every other unique culture in the country in a single-digit number of generations. Am I now supposed to be shunned for making that argument? What part of it is even logically invalid? You can disagree with it on the basis of priorities. I disagree with it. But why is a person making that argument a bad person? Why should that line of discourse be verboten? If you think the argument is wrong then say why. If you have to run the people you disagree with out of town because you can't refute their positions, chances are you're the bad guy.
- xamolxix 12y ago
  > Am I now supposed to be shunned for making that argument? The way I see it the state does not have a say in who I fall in love with. Neither do you or anyone else.
  - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
    Is he supposed to be shunned for making that argument?

paulhauggis 12y ago

"Replace gay marriage with racial segregation. What should be the social repercussions, if any, when a person advocates racial segregation?" How about we replace gay marriage with Christian? I have found that in the same circles that want acceptance and open thinking start to sing a different tune when it comes to religion.

woofyman 12y ago
True Christians are wonderful people. Intolerant Christians, not so much.
- thesagan 12y ago
  Like true Scottish people. I don't want to be a prick, but that's a can of worms, right there.
  - psquid 12y ago
    There's no one source which any Scotsman claims defines a Scotsman, though, whereas pretty much the core part of the definition of Christianity is following the teachings of Christ (it's in the name!), which the vast majority of bigots-who-call-themselves-Christians certainly don't.
    - deciplex 12y ago
      What are the teachings of Christ?
    - mercer 12y ago
      That's still a tough one though. Do we stop at just the words of Jesus, or do we include the teachings of the apostles? And if we include the apostles, what about the Catholic 'continuation' of that? Or what about reinterpretations by self-proclaimed prophets that are part of the many fascinating, sometimes scary, and sometimes sizable 'sects'?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> At what point does a good faith disagreement become taboo? It should be never. Let's take your example. For sake of argument I'm going to make an argument against interracial marriage. The US has a great diversity of cultural identities which are largely tied to race. For example, African Americans make up 13.2% of the US population and have a unique history and music, their own vernacular (AAVE), etc. We should seek to preserve these diverse cultural identities, but they are generally lost in families where the parents come from different cultural/racial groups. For example, if the current generation chooses mates without regard to race then in the next generation only 1.74% of offspring will have two African American parents. In the following generation the number drops to 0.03%. The entire third generation would fit into a typical school auditorium and the fourth generation would be extinct. The same would be true of every other unique culture in the country in a single-digit number of generations. Am I now supposed to be shunned for making that argument? What part of it is even logically invalid? You can disagree with it on the basis of priorities. I disagree with it. But why is a person making that argument a bad person? Why should that line of discourse be verboten? If you think the argument is wrong then say why. If you have to run the people you disagree with out of town because you can't refute their positions, chances are you're the bad guy.

xamolxix 12y ago
> Am I now supposed to be shunned for making that argument? The way I see it the state does not have a say in who I fall in love with. Neither do you or anyone else.
- FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
  Is he supposed to be shunned for making that argument?